typora_create_document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation that also launches the Typora application ('immediately open it'), and it clarifies how the optional title is formatted (as H1 in the schema). It does not mention overwrite behavior or error handling, but the main side effect and structure are stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core action and the optional components. No filler or redundancy—every clause adds information about what the tool does and what it produces.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the key outcome (file creation and opening) and the optional parameters, and there is no output schema to explain. However, it omits handling of edge cases such as whether existing files are overwritten or whether parent directories are created, which are relevant for a file-creation tool. For a straightforward create-and-open operation, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely lists the parameters ('title, YAML frontmatter, and body text') without adding meaning beyond the schema, which already documents each field including the H1 formatting and frontmatter key-value pairs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') with a concrete resource ('Markdown file') and specifies the optional components (title, YAML frontmatter, body text) plus the immediate side effect of opening in Typora. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like typora_open (which opens existing files) and typora_list_drafts (which lists files).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is reasonably implied: use this when you need a new Markdown file that should also be opened. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative typora_open for existing files, so the routing decision is left to the agent's inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.